Buddhist Atomism

[trivas7]

Buddhism studies the quanta that makes up the inner world of consciousness. It finds that there is no matter, persistence through time or substance to the content of both the inner and outer world, merely quanta of energy that flash in and out of existence. This is in stark agreement w/ the findings of quantum physics.

Buddhist meditation is empirical study not in the Western sense of studying something outside our minds but in the study of anything that appears in our consciousness. Neuroscience tell us that all phenomena we experience are constructions of maps of reality. In this sense all experience is inner, not outer.

Buddhist atomism is reductionistic. What exists in the Buddhist view is not the everyday objects of daily life but pure flashes of quanta that are experienced as pure sensations. According to both quantum physics and Buddhism you live in a material world that is composed of immaterial items, in a visible world composed of invisible items, in a persistent world that is composed of fleeting non-persistent items. Everything above this level of existence is mentally constructed. Physics, science, works of the imagination -- all are essentially unreal mentally constructed maps of reality. You are dreaming these, according to Buddhism.

[Kronos]

The distinction between "internal" and "external" should be abandoned, since this kind of phenomenology is dualistic. It isn't that reality is a "mental construct", but that the mediation of reality in our conception of it produces an awareness that appears to be suspended from what is perceived- the phenomenologists assert that consciousness is always of something other than itself. This principle is at the core of idealism, which Buddhism can be classified as.

While it might be argued that our pictures of reality are reproductions of sense data, this isn't to say that sense data cannot exist without itself being a picture. Only from the radically empirical perspective of Berkeley, for instance, does posterior experience claim to literally create the world- and this position is so radical that it is almost indistinguishable from 'a priori' rationalism.

This can be avoided by absolving the concept of inner and outer worlds- the "subject" and "object" dichotomy in philosophy- and replaced with a kind of neutral monism. Understanding that the way philosophers use the terms "mind" and "consciousness" are actually confounding, you can replace the mind/body dilemma with something akin to Nietzsche's idea of "dynamic quanta". Here, there is no "subject" which is differentiated from action, there is only the "deed". In this sense there isn't consciousness reconstructing sense data in the form of a map....but the entire process of the act of the world becoming sensible contains both knowing and known as a single act, if that makes any sense.

Perhaps it is the question of "qualia" in philosophy that has so complicated the matter of mind/body dualism. But why must there be a distinction between what is experienced and how what is experienced, is experienced? Now we are granting something we call a "self" as evident because we are describing experience? This is a confusion based in language.

What is the fundamental difference between Nagel's "bat" and anything else capable of experience? Considered from the "inside", from the "perspective", there is a difference in qualia.....but from the outside, there is no qualia, only a quantifiable physiological difference of the body that houses the experience. The qualia exists only in language....describing objects of experience...but sensation, the personal subjective sense that is ineffable in language, is not unique. All is comprised of a single, incremental series of acts with no inside or outside, no internal or external. The conceptual mediation of any subject is only a useful fiction. The "self" included.

From Nietzsche's Truth and Lie In An Extra-Moral Sense:


Let us still give special consideration to the formation of concepts. Every word immediately becomes a concept, inasmuch as it is not intended to serve as a reminder of the unique and wholly individualized original experience to which it owes its birth, but must at the same time fit innumerable, more or less similar cases—which means, strictly speaking, never equal—in other words, a lot of unequal cases.



Every concept originates through our equating what is unequal. No leaf ever wholly equals another, and the concept "leaf" is formed through an arbitrary abstraction from these individual differences, through forgetting the distinctions; and now it gives rise to the idea that in nature there might be something besides the leaves which would be "leaf"—some kind of original form after which all leaves have been woven, marked, copied, colored, curled, and painted, but by unskilled hands, so that no copy turned out to be a correct, reliable, and faithful image of the original form.



We call a person "honest." Why did he act so honestly today? we ask. Our answer usually sounds like this: because of his honesty. Honesty! That is to say again: the leaf is the cause of the leaves. After all, we know nothing of an essence-like quality named "honesty"; we know only numerous individualized, and thus unequal actions, which we equate by omitting the unequal and by then calling them honest actions. In the end, we distill from them a qualitas occulta [hidden quality] with the name of "honesty." We obtain the concept, as we do the form, by overlooking what is individual and actual; whereas nature is acquainted with no forms and no concepts, and likewise with no species, but only with an X which remains inaccessible and undefinable for us. For even our contrast between individual and species is something anthropomorphic and does not originate in the essence of things; although we should not presume to claim that this contrast does not correspond o the essence of things: that would of course be a dogmatic assertion and, as such, would be just as indemonstrable as its opposite.


This bears some resemblance to your Atomism theory, but it goes even further. Deconstructing the "outer world" is not enough. The inner world falls to the same fate.

Once we abandon the notion that there is an essence to things which can be discovered through the proper conception of them, and that there is no genre of "subject", we see that all of reality, as we conceive it, is not a result of some mental apprehension of the external, but rather a single process of dynamic powers interacting. "Knowledge", then, is not concerned with "truth" (how can it be?), but with being a means with which Will can dominate. Interpretation is the act of becoming master over something, not concerned with what is true or false, as further introspection would only reveal the impossibility of any "subject" (there is no subject where nothing is equal). Truth is only a useful, approximate fiction.

[trivas7]

[...]"Knowledge", then, is not concerned with "truth" (how can it be?), but with being a means with which Will can dominate.
In the Buddhist view, your Will, too, is entirely a fiction.

[Kronos]

That is not how I understand Buddhism. According to what I have read, there are elements of Voluntarism in it, but the doctrine concludes paradoxically that the resignation of the Will, the destruction of the ego, is the rational solution to what it has posited as the problem- suffering. Then the Will to Power is only inverted here, not abolished. Willing becomes an act of nihilism, an act of denying, an act of transcending the world. "Nirvana" is that stage of absolute annihilation of the ego.

Here I have the same insight as Nietzsche. Better to will nothing than not will- this is the reactive nature of the Buddhist ego. The ego is certainly there, and not a fiction. It is through the clever conception of the will-as-negative that the Buddhist will becomes inverted and reactionary. It says "no" to everything....but still it is a Will. Its creative act is in the principle of the extinction of life. It upholds the ascetic ideal to gross proportions.

Another religion of decadence, but not to be put beside Christianity for goodness sake! Christianity is a terrible insult to Buddhism.

[trivas7]

That is not how I understand Buddhism. According to what I have read, there are elements of Voluntarism in it, but the doctrine concludes paradoxically that the resignation of the Will, the destruction of the ego, is the rational solution to what it has posited as the problem- suffering. Then the Will to Power is only inverted here, not abolished. Willing becomes an act of nihilism, an act of denying, an act of transcending the world. "Nirvana" is that stage of absolute annihilation of the ego.

Yes, this is the usual Western misunderstanding of Buddhism. But Buddhism doesn't propose the resignation of the Will, but investigates whether or not it exists at all.

[Kronos]

But Buddhism doesn't propose the resignation of the Will, but investigates whether or not it exists at all.

And in that act of philosophical contemplation, which they insist is indifferent and without interest, they are engaged in either denying or moderating desires and urges. Now one may question whether or not a "Will" exists at all, but one cannot yet deny their urges, drives and desires without first having acknowledged them. They are nihilists, life-denying ascetics who practice a will-power in refusing rather than affirming.

Buddhism is one step closer to truth, but stopped at that last step. Indeed, the world is meaningless, a circumstance full of struggling and suffering with no redeeming quality to justify it. To overcome this pessimism, one must embrace tragedy in good spirits. This was Nietzsche's solution to Schopenhauer, who was essentially a pessimist with the same modus operandi as Eastern metaphysics in general.

Buddhism properly identifies the problem of existence, but does not overcome it.

Seek Dionysus, ye philosopher, and thou shall find the truth.

Verily, I speak thus.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Buddhism studies the quanta that makes up the inner world of consciousness.

What on Earth does this sentence even mean? It looks like nonsense to me.


It finds that there is no matter, persistence through time or substance to the content of both the inner and outer world, merely quanta of energy that flash in and out of existence. This is in stark agreement w/ the findings of quantum physics.

I've often seen this claim made but have never seen it backed up with quotes from relevant texts. I suspect it may be based on a mistranslation/creative interpretation of Buddhist texts, a misunderstanding of quantum mechanics, or both.


Buddhist meditation is empirical study not in the Western sense of studying something outside our minds but in the study of anything that appears in our consciousness. Neuroscience tell us that all phenomena we experience are constructions of maps of reality. In this sense all experience is inner, not outer.

It's bad enough when mystics abuse QM to make their babblings seem profound, are you really that much of a philistine to tread that crap into neuroscience as well?


Buddhist atomism is reductionistic. What exists in the Buddhist view is not the everyday objects of daily life but pure flashes of quanta that are experienced as pure sensations. According to both quantum physics and Buddhism you live in a material world that is composed of immaterial items, in a visible world composed of invisible items, in a persistent world that is composed of fleeting non-persistent items. Everything above this level of existence is mentally constructed.

Please learn some quantum mechanics before you spout off such rubbish.

[trivas7]

Please learn some quantum mechanics before you spout off such rubbish.
How about if Purdue lecturer Jeffrey Grupp spouts off such rubbish?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4w0Wd_rUSPM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4w0Wd_rUSPM)

Here's another discussion re Buddhism and QM:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj_i7YqDwJA

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

No good at all, since I can't watch videos.

But googling for "Jeffrey Grupp" gets his website, www.abstractatom.com (http://www.abstractatom.com), and already I am, shall we say, disappointed. An advertisement for a book titled Corporatism: The secret government of the new world order, with endorsements from the likes of Alex Jones and a snake-oil salesman flogging woo and vitamin supplements, is definately not a good sign.

[mikelepore]

Ch'an (Chinese) or Zen (Japanese) Buddhism, and most Mahayana, would agree with the point that the map isn't the reality, but they wouldn't say that "there is no matter." They would emphasize interacting with the material in the present moment, without trying to grasp it through discursive reasoning. They would quote Hojoki in the 8th century who said, "How wondrous, I draw water, I carry fuel." The concept and the experience of Satori are very material, but in an intuitive and not an analytical way; enlightenment is "the cypress tree in the courtyard" (Zhaozhou), etc.

The description in the first post sounds to me more like those Hindus who believe (and not all do) that life is all illusion, maya, and who take the fable of Arjuna more literally than some others.

Physicists also wouldn't say that "there is no matter." They would say there are some types of particle production that are followed after very short times by annihilation, they would say that particles cross potential barriers by tunnelling, and similar concepts that deviate from the classical concept of matter. Claims such as "there is no matter" would be more likely used by writers in popular magazines and paperback books.

***

"Nothing is real." - John Lennon in 'Strawberry Field Forever'.

For shame! That song lyric was quoted by John Gribbin, usually a very accurate science writer, in his book 'In Search of Schrodinger's Cat'.

[trivas7]

Ch'an (Chinese) or Zen (Japanese) Buddhism, and most Mahayana, would agree with the point that the map isn't the reality, but they wouldn't say that "there is no matter."
Not according to the 7th cent. Buddhist logicians Dignaga and Dharmakirti. They opposed the idea of matter theorized by Sankhya Indian philosophers.

[Kronos]

Trivas, if I grant you and the Easterns the fact that "there is no matter", on what basis would you defend the illusion that there is? Even if you took the position of an Idealist, you would still have to explain how "mind" apprehends the illusion of the material world.

Quantum "weirdness" in its extreme- the particle doesn't exist until it is observed- is an assertion resting on a catch-22: if it doesn't exist, and there is only observation, would another observer be lying if he said to a person who did not observe the particle "a particle exists because I just observed it"?

Taken to its extremes, Idealism presents the problem of "many minds"...and raises questions like "if two idealists are standing beside each other, and one falls over dead, do they both cease to exist?"

They would have to, right? If the guy who remains living only exists if the guy who just died is alive to observe him, then with the death of one would have to come the end of the other.

The fact is, matter does exist regardless of being observed. Now science may forever be puzzled over the nature of this matter, but if it ever asserts that it simply cannot exist....it becomes stuck with an even bigger problem- explaining the illusion that it does..and how that works.

You might also consider that Eastern philosophy and metaphysics is the epitome of language gaming. Unless your philosophy is honed and refined by scientific method and technology, it remains metaphorical and obscure.

What is the sound of one hand clapping?

[trivas7]

The fact is, matter does exist regardless of being observed. Now science may forever be puzzled over the nature of this matter, but if it ever asserts that it simply cannot exist....it becomes stuck with an even bigger problem- explaining the illusion that it does..and how that works.

This merely reflects your Western bias that there is a objective world outside your mind. This is philosophical materialism. The phenomenal world investigated by physics posits matter as what has mass that is extended in space, but this doesn't presume philosophic materialism. Both of these the Buddhist logicians I reference would deny.

[Kronos]

http://www.iep.utm.edu/b/berkeley.htm

If you're gonna go Idealist, do it in Western style, Trivas.

( I don't think my last arguments set in. They are irrefutable. If you understood me, you would've dropped Idealism like a bad habit. But if you insist, you might as well go all out, homes. Esse is Percipi, Trivas. You know you love it. )

[trivas7]

http://www.iep.utm.edu/b/berkeley.htm
If you're gonna go Idealist, do it in Western style, Trivas.

The logicians I reference (which makes perfect sense to me) don't go idealist, despite the fact that the Mahayana tradition does do so in fact after them. Buddhist atoms are the only real things in existence according to them. So no, I'm not an idealist.

Briefly as to what causes the illusion of the phenomenal world, they would answer in a Kantian vein that this is the work of the productive imagination.

[Kronos]

(revised below)

[Kronos]

(revised former post)

I cannot believe that such metaphysics are the result of a truly scientific inquiry into the nature of existence. As are all metaphysics, failed science, "almost-science", the employment of scientific terms without taking scientific measure, that comfortable gray area between philosophy (as poetic language) and science (as complete correspondence between theory and experimental result), the nature of this field is never to simplify truth, but compound it so that truth, which is in experience alone, might be found somewhere in a composition of different kinds of structures in language.

The ethical subjects of discourse are appropriate, but only because there are no scientifically demonstrable ethical facts in the first place. Therefore, its philosophy of ethics is in the proper context- it does not purport that ethical truths are anything more than what should be had with personal interests. It is a pure relativism free from conviction and notions of duty or obedience to law. Ethics for the Buddhist are strictly the means to avoid violence and struggle.

The epistemological concepts proceed by using non-literal contexts and subjects and applying them as if they were literal. The language is strictly symbolic, metaphorical, and allegorical. Sense and meaning depends solely on the ability to associate meanings between fixed symbols to produce a fictional idea that is suspended from reality. A "language on vacation", as Wittgenstein put it. Ask a Buddhist what the origins of knowledge are and you will get a very obscure answer...something drastically different from an answer produced out of the philosophical lexicon in the west. Anything beyond or above an empirical explanation transitions back into the non-literal form of metaphysical explanation.

As such, all metaphysical systems are not extensions of philosophy-from-science, as if it could "get behind" physics ("meta") and discover these meta-laws which make physical laws possible, nor the staging of the right questions after which science would follow to investigate.

Instead, at each point in the history of a metaphysical system we get the testimony of a symptom of a depression and dissatisfaction with the prevailing scientific explanations for existence- man, the "existential animal", still broods with questions of meaning, which the dry sciences do not answer, and so he invents new kinds of questions...questions that cannot be reached by science.

Although Eastern metaphysics are subject to these original conditions, compared to western metaphysical orientations, behind which theology is always looming, there is a profound difference in the pathology of the Eastern mystic. He is not bound to the traditional polytheistic and anthropomorphic atmosphere out of which western metaphysics emerged. In that sense, his metaphysics are a kind of positivism- free of the pathetic elements of western mysticism- but still an effort to get behind science, for the same reasons....reasons which testify against the spiritual constitution, attitude and disposition of the decadent nihilist- the life-denying.

The pathos/ethos can be demonstrated as such: the Will is first abolished through a reaction to the world based from weakness. The world appears essentially as a "pointless struggle". And here is where the Buddhism exemplifies its superiority to Christianity- in the solution to this conflict. Buddhism recovers the Will, the ego, and expresses its affirmative power in the intention and purpose to end the Will through destroying it- a voluntary creative deed in this respect- this is arrived at through a series of "spiritual gradations" through "karmic stages". Christianity, on the other hand, goes a step further- it declares the world to be bad, sinful, fallen, forlorn, but promises another world in place of this one. The difference is, the Christian recovery of the Will is based on an effort to transcend this world to enter the other, while the Buddhist Will is the effort to cease at the truth- this world is a pointless struggle...and there is no other world. The Christian Will originates from two forms of weakness- first, the psychological and physical lack of strength, and second, the intellectual dishonesty. The Buddhist is exempt from the latter.

Despite that final classification of the ethos of the Buddhist doctrine, it is purest expression of the stoic and pious nature ever conceived. Unlike its neighbor, Christianity, which grew out of the rotten soil of a peoples contempt for the political turbulence of its time, Buddhism stands calmly outside and above such civil conflict and desperation.

And yet, whatever modern metaphysical systems of thought which claim to be the developments of Buddhist philosophy, and attempt to incorporate new sciences into their schemata, are only continuing a lineage of philosophical language games and thought experiments to the point of pseudo-scientific nonsense. None of this ever comes into contact with reality. It is, more or less, another philosophy meme that has yet to become extinct. Still withstanding, Buddhism should be exalted and honored for its intellectual honesty, albeit an honest failure to distinguish its doctrine as pseudo-scientific.

Here is some excellent analysis and comparison of Christianity and Buddhism from Nietzsche's The Antichrist:

Quote
Buddhism is a hundred times more realistic than Christianity: posing problems objectively and coolly is part of its inheritance, for Buddhism comes after a philosophic movement which spanned centuries. The concept of "God" had long been disposed of when it arrived. Buddhism is the only genuinely positivistic religion in history. This applies even to its theory of knowledge (a strict phenomenalism—): it no longer says "struggle against sin" but, duly respectful of reality, "struggle against suffering." Buddhism is profoundly distinguished from Christianity by the fact that the self-deception of the moral concepts lies far behind it. In my terms, it stands beyond good and evil.— The two physiological facts on which it is based and which it keeps in mind are: first, an excessive sensitivity, which manifests itself in a refined susceptibility to pain; and second, an overspiritualization, an all-too-long preoccupation with concepts and logical procedures, which has damaged the instinct of personality by subordinating it to the "impersonal" (—both states which at least some of my readers, those who are "objective" like myself, will know from experience). These physiological conditions have led to a depression, and the Buddha proceeds against this with hygienic measures. Against it he recommends life in the open air, the wandering life; moderation in eating and a careful selection of foods; wariness of all intoxicants; wariness also of all emotions that activate the gall bladder or heat the blood; no worry either for oneself or for others. He prescribes ideas which are either soothing or cheering—he invents means for weaning oneself from all the others. He understands goodness and graciousness as health-promoting. Prayer is ruled out, and so is asceticism; there is no categorial imperative, no compulsion whatever, not even in the monastic societies (—one may leave again—). All these things would merely increase the excessive sensitivity we mentioned. For the same reason, he does not ask his followers to fight those who think otherwise: there is nothing to which his doctrine is more opposed than the feeling of revenge, antipathy, ressentiment (—"it is not by enmity that enmity is ended": that is the stirring refrain of all Buddhism ...). And all this is quite right: these emotions would indeed be utterly unhealthy in view of the basic hygienic purpose. Against the spiritual exhaustion he encounters, which manifests itself in an excessive "objectivity" (that is, in the individual's loss of interest in himself, in the loss of a center of gravity, of "egoism"), he fights with a rigorous attempt to lead back even the most spiritual interests to the person. In the Buddha's doctrine, egoism becomes a duty: the "one thing needful," the question "how can you escape from suffering?" regulates and limits the whole spiritual diet.

[trivas7]

I cannot believe that such metaphysics are the result of a truly scientific inquiry into the nature of existence. [...]
When you discover that the ordinary redkneck shares the same fate with the philosopher as far as his innate natural-logic goes, buddhist logic takes you to the last frontier where you discover the fact that all human beings of all races are naturally ignorant (including moi).

Unconsciously, the Buddhist logicians Dignaga and Dharmakirti have literally outwitted the very purpose of epistemological sciences by illustrating that there is no logic beyond the logic of whatever experience you are going through this very moment.

[Kronos]

When you discover that the ordinary redkneck shares the same fate with the philosopher

I don't know what kinds of rednecks you've been talking to, but the ones around here couldn't pour water out of a boot with the instructions on the heel.

As far as fates, every particular thing that exists is subject to recur infinitely, and in that they have something in common. That they will exist and must exist- that is all. The essence of each thing, the summation of what it 'becomes' while it exists, is completely unique. We may estimate and make approximations concerning their likeness...but no two things are ever identical.


his innate natural-logic goes

I don't know what that is, but if you are referring to what logical process occurs physiologically and independently of language, you are describing the binary operations of the nervous system. Before we acquire a 'concept' in language, the faculties of perception must be stimulated. Sensations make impressions on the nervous system, through the senses, and the system reacts by impulse. Neuronal inertia is disturbed by the electro-chemical impulse and becomes active through discharging- a neuron either fires or it does not. This happens prior to 'conceptualization' in the 'mind'.

That is the extent of a process we may describe as 'logical', but beyond that, in language, there is no such thing as 'innate logic'.

Logic is a learned system of rules and principles, but it is not applicable without a subject. The subject is the concept established in language pertaining to sensory experience. The only logical principle that can possibly exist without an application to a subject is the tautology- what is true is true. But this principle has nothing to do with what the subject of identity is, and therefore it is redundant.


buddhist logic takes you to the last frontier where you discover the fact that all human beings of all races are naturally ignorant (including moi).

If that is true, then it cannot be true, since such a claim asserts that at least one thing is known- that we are ignorant.

But supposing that there is no such thing as "truth" outside of perspective, it would suffice to say that what we know is that we 'think we know what is the case'. We need not assert anything more than justifiable belief in something to formally claim to have 'knowledge'.

But pure Cartesian doubt is impossible. It precludes itself. Therefore, 'ignorance' cannot mean 'not knowing'. Rather, it might mean not knowing what is the case instead of knowing that there is the case....if that makes any sense to you. Experience cannot be doubted, although the content of it can under certain circumstances.


Unconsciously, the Buddhist logicians Dignaga and Dharmakirti have literally outwitted the very purpose of epistemological sciences by illustrating that there is no logic beyond the logic of whatever experience you are going through this very moment.

There is some sensibility in that, although the idea can be explained more eloquently. Allow The Moustache:


And what magnificent instruments of observation we possess in our senses! This nose, for example, of which no philosopher has yet spoken with reverence and gratitude, is actually the most delicate instrument so far at our disposal: it is able to detect minimal differences of motion which even a spectroscope cannot detect. Today we possess science precisely to the extent to which we have decided to accept the testimony of the senses—to the extent to which we sharpen them further, arm them, and have learned to think them through. The rest is miscarriage and not-yet-science: in other words, metaphysics, theology, psychology, epistemology. Or formal science, a doctrine of signs: such as logic and that applied logic which is called mathematics. In them reality is not encountered at all, not even as a problem; no more than the question of the value of such a sign-convention as logic.


Origin of the logical.-- How did logic come into existence in man's head? Certainly out of illogic, whose realm originally must have been immense. Innumerable beings who made inferences in a way different from ours perished; for all that, their ways might have been truer. Those, for example, who did not know how to find often enough what is "equal" as regards both nourishment and hostile animals--those, in other words, who subsumed things too slowly and cautiously--were favored with a lesser probability of survival than those who guessed immediately upon encountering similar instances that they must be equal. The dominant tendency, however, to treat as equal what is merely similar--an illogical tendency, for nothing is really equal--is what first created any basis for logic.


In order that the concept of substance could originate--which is indispensible for logic although in the strictest sense nothing real corresponds to it--it was likewise necessary that for a long time one did not see or perceive the changes in things. The beings that did not see so precisely had an advantage over those who saw everything "in flux." At bottom, every high degree of caution in making inferences and every skeptical tendency constitute a great danger for life. No living beings would have survived if the opposite tendency--to affirm rather than suspend judgement, to err and make up things rather than wait, to assent rather than negate, to pass judgement rather than be just-- had not been bred to the point where it became extraordinarily strong.

[Kronos]

Come, Trivas. Let us walk awhile together and go placidly amid the noise and haste. Let us remember what peace there may be in silence. (and wipe that stupid grin off your face...you're supposed to be a nihilist)

http://www.spraguephoto.com/stock/images/Cambodia/km05-83%20Religion%20Cambodia%20Buddhist%20monks%20walk ing%20along%20paddy%20field%20Kampong%20Cham.jpg

[Kronos]

...[cough].....Trivas?

[trivas7]

...[cough].....Trivas?

http://praxeology.net/thetis.jpg

Kronos?

[Lynx]

TomK - in his dreams.

Kronos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cronus) was a bit of a bad ass.

[trivas7]

It's bad enough when mystics abuse QM to make their babblings seem profound, are you really that much of a philistine to tread that crap into neuroscience as well?

Human perception was always important to Buddhism. They often begin sermons by mentioning the six senses and the consciousness that arises from these. IOW, Enlightenment began w/ understanding how the senses operated physically.

Buddhists never denied the external world. What they said was: you'll never see it directly. All you experience is the brain's chemical and electrical reactions to the data that comes from the senses and this encompasses all of human experience. Whatever is beyond this is beyond human capacity to experience. The illusion is not the external world, it is that the brain creates virtual reality and it does so impeccably. AFAIK this is exactly what cognitive science tells us today, i.e., the eye sends an impulse to the brain, and the brain processes that impulse.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Buddhists never denied the external world. What they said was: you'll never see it directly. All you experience is the brain's chemical and electrical reactions to the data that comes from the senses and this encompasses all of human experience. Whatever is beyond this is beyond human capacity to experience. The illusion is not the external world, it is that the brain creates virtual reality and it does so impeccably. AFAIK this is exactly what cognitive science tells us today, i.e., the eye sends an impulse to the brain, and the brain processes that impulse.

I'm inclined to say "so what?" It sounds like the Buddhists got lucky describing the basic details, but considering the amount of crap that's been written over the centuries that's hardly impressive.

Wake me up when they use Buddhist revelations to help construct a direct neural man-machine interface or something. But I suspect neuroscience will get there first, without the orientalist promotion of mystical garbage.

[trivas7]

I'm inclined to say "so what?" [...]
So don't tell me I "tread...crap into neuroscience as well". Long before Western cognitive studies Buddhists understood that the physiology of human perception was crucial to how we experience reality.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So don't tell me I "tread...crap into neuroscience as well". Long before Western cognitive studies Buddhists understood that the physiology of human perception was crucial to how we experience reality.

So you claim. I have not seen any actual evidence, just post hoc generalisations. So far you've got as much credibility as the people who say the "let there be light" line in Genesis is proof the writers of the Bible knew Big Bang theory.

[Pogue]

buddha wasted his life

[mikelepore]

Quantum "weirdness" in its extreme- the particle doesn't exist until it is observed- is an assertion resting on a catch-22: if it doesn't exist, and there is only observation, would another observer be lying if he said to a person who did not observe the particle "a particle exists because I just observed it"?

The authors of a hundred popular science paperback books say it wrong.

In quantum mechanics, it is NOT established that the particle doesn't exist until it is observed.

The phrase should be: The particle doesn't have a specific location until it interacts with something macroscopic. Until then, it's location is a probability density function. Usually in a very short time the particle interacts with something that is huge compared to subatomic particles, perhaps a speck of dust, a droplet of water, or any wall. Then its probability distribution will collapse to particular location. Of all possible ways to interact with a macroscopic objects, one possible way is to encounter a photographic film, scintillation screen, geiger counter, etc., and thereby be observed. There is no evidence that to be observed has anything more to do with it.

[trivas7]

[...] The particle doesn't have a specific location until it interacts with something macroscopic. Until then, it's location is a probability density function.
Aren't you just quibbling w/ words here? Mathematical functions aren't locality in space. Locality is specified by observation, nothing less.