Where is the self? How can dualism stand if it's just a fiction?

Hopefully there will always be a lack of evidence. Without that lack we will no longer have science, nothing new to learn, dogma. Doubt is a right. But when doubt is very small, it is reasonable to act on present knowledge until technology or reason reveal an exception to the rule. I'm comfortable acting on my current understanding. And I'm open to new evidence. But that evidence has to make sense to me. Otherwise, I won't believe it. If my ability to understand is the cause of my disbelief, there's not much I can do about that. I'm free to believe as I do, just as you are. Let's leave it at that.

That works well for anyone who has the wherewithall to make more right decisions than wrong ones. How any individual decides what to do or not to do, what to believe or not to believe, are difficult decisions other than the fact that many of the choices we make are more or less influenced by our genes and environment.

Yes. I generally agree.
There are systems like the human brain which can exhibit very complex behaviors. These behaviors result from a complex interaction of much simpler pieces (be they neurons, molecules, etc.). A property of the behavior in such systems is unpredictability.
Unpredictable in a sense that is more like un-post-dictable. Unpredictable in the sense that it is logically,mathematically, and physically impossible to look at the present state of the system and determine what the state was like in the past. Unpredictable also in the sense that in order to pre-dict a future state all
of following would require many potentially implausible things.

REQUIRED FOR PREDICTION:
There could be no influence from outside the system.
Time would have to be discontinuous.
An, in some sense, identical system must be created.
That "in some sense" identical system would have to be in an actual sense faster than the original system it models.
The model system must be set to exactly the same state as the original system, requiring an exact knowledge of the present state of the original system.
The model system must be run for exactly the equivalent number of iterations (think of this as exactly the right amount of time).

If any of the requirements are not met, in the sense of one being even slightly not met, then the prediction could be very very far off.
(Colloquially called the "Butterfly Effect")

This unpredictability seems to clash with a view of the world that is strictly deterministic.
But that's OK, because...
Even if we assume strict determinism we can create those effects.
These effects were demonstrated in a strictly deterministic mathematical model. One such model was discovered by Steven Wolfram using cellular automata.
Cellular automata are very (read extremely) simple. Much simpler than atoms. You may remember them from their staring role in:

The Game of Life (early computer game)


I want to demonstrate this principally to show how it is not unreasonable to speak of behavior originating from within a system.
And if things like "free will", "self-ness", or consciousness are manifestations of such systems, then it is reasonable to speak of them as originating from within such system.

I hope to come back to this topic or the rest of the points your raised later.

I appreciate your clear comments and agree with them. But, there is something you can do about understanding. Study, learning. When I first started investigating Buddhism I was attracted because the basic premise of the 4 Basic Truths made sense to me. I decided to study and practice with other Buddhists. I have learned and experienced a great deal since then that allows me much more understanding than I had at first. I think that process is certainly applicable to many topics. I am by nature a very suspicious person. I seen have religion, and the blind obedience to it cause damage in my own family. So still, I am careful to avoid blindly accepting anything. But at some point faith in a teacher or teaching does yield benefits.

When you think about it in perspectives..That is pretty dang cool to think that someone had the skills/intelligence to engineer a game like that! In order for others like Bill Gates to create Windows (TM), and another Windows 7 (TM), very interesting! Thanks for sharing! It truly makes others want to accomplish things, and makes our future look much brighter! Thanks a lot! I am not very old, so much so, that I am not even familiar with the game itself, myself...

But many younger than me, would look at the simplicity and laugh not understanding the complex fashion in which everything operates in order for a game like that one...to become Halo 3 (TM) or something...As many youngsters, and even other individuals do not comprehend that everything has a fixed/limitless value that equates to everything being one...Even if not in an afterlife, we are one as a society...


I simply do not understand why it is hard to comprehend a dualistic way is a necessity, progression, and the natural state at which things are, before they become non-dualistic...while no one can prove it is true...Once they become non-dualistic...

I can't understand how Buddha did not know or say that the path to reaching enlightenment is to start dualistic, and become non-dualistic...And once non, you are dualistic, because you are non-dualistic...when you reach Nirvana, and break the cycle...but others have not done so and are still dualistic...Hence the reason why Buddhists believe in a rebirth to become non-dualistic...And why one would become so saddened, that they would be subjected to permanence, and want to die...because the nature is to be non dualistic and not dualistic and survive together forever...And keep living...

But once becoming non-dualistic, you can not ever find dualism again (In my views of his views)

I do not understand why he would ask for dualism to be shown, unless he is/ or knew he would be suffering being non dualistic...but knew it was the only way one could be? IE afterlife, he did not want to be apart of...but knew he would...

Well, I think learning from a teacher has benefits. And some amount of trust is necessary for an open enough mind to learn. But if the teacher tries to teach me something that doesn't make sense to me, whether it makes sense to others or not, then I can't learn it or especially, I can't believe it. I've never known how to believe or have faith in something that I don't believe.

I don't know how much of a role cellular automata played in the software you listed (my suspicion is none).
There is software that is however, in Siri on the iphone.
Also in the system that powers Siri, WolframAlpha.
Wolfram|Alpha is somewhat successful in translating human language into computational equivalence and then predicting what information should be provided to the user. Or in other words answering questions.


I hope you don't make the mistake of assuming that his views are representative of all Buddhist's views.

I think that it is possible to arrive at a trans-dualistic view, using the methods of learning that are acquired from dualism.

I don't think that this is the same path that most Buddhists follow.
I think the more popular path among Buddhists relies upon many years of meditative and ethical practice, along this path those practices are essential.
Those practices are essential to this path, they can't be skipped over.

I don't think that it is advisable for someone along this traditional path to attempt refuting dualism, using the only the tools of dualism. This is sort of a justification for Buddhism not to be evangelizing in the "I can prove you wrong sort of way."
Lead by example. Demonstrate peace. Demonstrate love. Demonstrate compassion. Demonstrate tolerance. Those are probably much better evangelizing tools, at least for a Buddhist.

Challenge???

Was it swords or pistols?

And, Fresco...are you a fish?

I was joking with ya, Lola. I thought that was pretty clear.

Dale...let me ask the same question I asked Matt.

Where you the person who posted the video that I mentioned I watched in its entirety?

That's a beautiful statement.

I remember posting such a video frank.

Good, I thought it was you...although it might have been Dale.

In any case, I could have written that guy's lecture.

I have expressed so many of those same sentiments and observations ...OFTEN...here in A2K and in other forums.

One of the positions so often dismissed in discussions on "esoteric matters" (or at least given short shrift), Matt, is: WE DO NOT KNOW...and perhaps it is impossible to know.

People want to narrow some of these things down to it is either this or that (it is either dualistic or it is non-dualistic)...when in fact such a mutually exclusive approach MIGHT NOT be appropriate in the REALITY. Not that it might be an amalgam...but that it might be outside that box in a way that we cannot appreciate. (Refer to my comments about ants considering the universe.)

The position "We do not know...and perhaps it is impossible to know" ought not to be dismissed as unworthy, unscholarly, or unproductive.

SOMETHING TO REFLECT ON:

Ptolemy created a model of (what he thought of as) the universe—or the solar system. He included all sorts of celestial mechanics, which served no purpose other than to make his system work…to account for the apparent motion of the various lights that “traveled across the sky.”

As it turns out…it was all wrong. The only reason for contemplating the various elements of the model was to explain something that was an illusion. Most of the apparent motion was simply the motion of our planet rotating on its axis…something Ptolemy was not able to appreciate.

I suspect that most philosophical considerations of things like “what is truth”…are of a similar nature.

Certainly most of the discussions of that kind that I see being conducted here in the forum…are almost certainly of that kind, because in almost every case the arguments being offered are in defense of a position already taken…rather than positions deriving from the considerations.

The cart is almost always being put before the horse.

I most assuredly am not the sharpest tool in the A2K shed, but I am more able to appreciate the value of “I do not know…and it may even be unknowable” than most…which I see as a huge advantage in these considerations.

Just sayin’!

I agree and I call that intellectual integrity. To accept without understanding is very dangerous. To have faith without belief becomes a cult. There is a point between open mindedness and blind obedience that one has to find.

Thanks Frank.
I think good lesson to take away from this is that all theories are tentative.
Just as all previous models of reality have been demonstrated to be temporary.

I would like to add:
These positions were all reversed in the sense of being discovered not 100% accurate.
There was a progression in discovering models that each became more accurate than the last.

As a joke and only a joke:

Which of course, begs the question.
Then why didn't you?

Of course we can leave it at that.
What I was going for was lack of sufficient evidence.
For you to judge the level of doubt, you must examine sufficient evidence at hand. Let me ask you, other than the discussion here, have you delved in other sources on the matter of self?
Neuroscience it seems is starting to finding more evidence based on brain mapping and other experimental studies to cause a commotion against those who adhere to a a dualistic concept of self.

No problem with the joke part, Matt.

But my response is...except for a very small part about "believing"...essentially I did and have. I have written all those things...many, many times, both here on the Internet in several forums (fora, if you prefer) and in op ed pieces in newspapers across the country.

Not a lot of success with any of it, but...that goes with the territory.

When musing on that "lack of success", I often remind myself that Vincent Van Gogh never sold a single painting in his life!

Ear ! Ear !