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

@igm,

What follows, igm, is not mocking. It is a way to give you an alternate perspective of what you just wrote:

Quote:

This all leads to growing confidence but not to an 'absolute' proof.

It doesn't even come close to proof, let alone absolute proof...and this is almost identical to what Christians and atheists say about their “growing confidence.”

Quote:

My form of Buddhist meditation is only really effective if one can let go of the notion of a truly existent self…

Some Christians tell me that their brand of Christianity is only really effective if one can let go of other Christian notions about blah, blah, blah.

Some people who “believe” there are no gods tell me their brand of atheism is only really effective if one can let go of less perceptive forms of atheism.

Quote:

… and the notion of a creator god by developing critical reasons for confidence that this is the case because it undermines doubts arising during meditation... blind faith will never remove/undermine doubts.

So you, like SpadeMaster, are absolutely positive you cannot be deluding yourself?

Really, igm…really?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, you misunderstand almost everything I wrote--probably because of my failure to communicate . First of all I meant to say that much of what the Buddha reported was alogical not illogical. Logical deduction was not his tool of choice; it was the use of intuition sharpened by meditation.
Most of you said, however, is too innane (pardon my arrogance) for me to take the time to disentangle. Rolling Eyes

And I am clearly not above telling you that there is much wrong with you, not only because you fail to agree with my "take on things" but for reasons beyond your control. These reasons were addressed by the Buddha. I would say that you suffer from a kind of normal unsanity (as opposed to insanity), a state of mind that is the case with most of us, including myself most of the time--but that I am gradually overcoming. I wish you well.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5307064)
Frank, you misunderstand almost everything I wrote--probably because of my failure to communicate . First of all I meant to say that much of what the Buddha reported was alogical not illogical. Logical deduction was not his tool of choice; it was the use of intuition sharpened by meditation.

I dealt with what you wrote, JL. That is the appropriate thing to do.

You wrote: “The Buddha did not provide us with a logical argument…”

I agreed with that.

Quote:

Most of you said, however, is too innane (pardon my arrogance) for me to take the time to disentangle.

With as much respect as I can muster right now...this sounds like an excuse not to deal with my response.

No problem.

Quote:

And I am clearly not above telling you that there is much wrong with you, not only because you fail to agree with my "take on things" but for reasons beyond your control. These reasons were addressed by the Buddha. I would say that you suffer from a kind of normal unsanity (as opposed to insanity), a state of mind that is the case with most of us, including myself most of the time--but that I am gradually overcoming. I wish you well.

Yeah.

Not your best response of all times, JL...not by a long shot.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I disagree.

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
The Buddha did not provide us with a logical argument…

That part I agree with! Enthusiastically.

I disagree. First Frank is guessing (wrongly) because he doesn't know all the teachings of the Buddha. JL studies a form of Buddhism that ignores the logical arguments and prefers to simply meditate.

Sorry, chaps but that's how I see it because there are teachings that show a truly existent self is a form of fallacious reasoning, the result is that it is possible to feel confident that there is no truly existent self; that the self is imaginary but useful because it allows for dualistic thinking and communication. The same with there being a creator god that is also shown to be fallacious.. logically shown using the Buddha's teachings. Then based on that one examines using one's own critical reasoning and finally one meditates.

This all leads to growing confidence but not to an 'absolute' proof. My form of Buddhist meditation is only really effective if one can let go of the notion of a truly existent self and the notion of a creator god by developing critical reasons for confidence that this is the case because it undermines doubts arising during meditation... blind faith will never remove/undermine doubts.

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

I disagree.

Wow, that was unexpected. What a surprise!

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I know, Frank. It was not my best moment, but sometimes you can be irresistable.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I can certainly make a partial case for JL and at least a meditation typology which provides awareness by unfocusing from a particular plane of resolution of your normal current experience and refocusing on a larger plane of resolution that provides you a different experiencing, which by lack of better coinage it is in somewhat similar to multi tasking... you do it without thinking you are doing it, even if we bottom line know your brain is thinking for you in a different mode...that is , there is logical processing going on, but on a different level of resolution and with integrate system tasking...the opposite of specific focusing...say like, parallel vision.
Now, in all fairness I must clarify the point about delusions Frank was doing is mute either way, so that a distinct pattern of awareness isn't per se nor better nor worse regarding experiential knowledge then your normal pattern of awareness, except perhaps that by being distinct it ads to your experience...and that's is where I believe JL might have a point. I don't agree with him in thinking that meditation is deeper then a normal mode of relating your consciousness with reality...but I can empathise why he believes so, as meditation is not how we trivially operate...so admittedly meditation ads a different perception and with it enriches your experience of the world with variety !

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Sorry. I cannot commune with your words "mechanical" or "brain". You are looking for reductionist explanations by analogy with machines. Since modern physics has dumped such analogies it is unlikely they would be useful in studies of the cognitive system from which physics has arisen. So unless you are advocating a deity with a "goal", the word "co-ordination" is merely a human post-facto description of "a system" without "a designer". But that "system" has been "thinged" as such by a conscious observer who defines its limits and its functions.

What "machines" are you talking about ? Systems, as anything else for that matter are mechanical to, as "organic" for instance is just mechanical complex...unless you think their are magical... And "brain" was just a common trend for what goes inside your skull which is my frame of reference,I am not even debating materialistic or non materialistic approaches to "brain"...again your utterly mistaken if you think Modern Physics has dumped mechanic Fresco, if you believe so you don't know what mechanic is...get me a physic to state he has dumped mechanics, you can search the whole web for that matter...yet again what "deity" did you got from my words ? An integrated multi functional system is no more of a deity then a central processor a microchip or Windows 7...

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

No I suggested "Social self" gives emergence to "group culture" and vice versa...I didn't intend it as synonyms but as an inter dependent, mutually constraining process...I still think that the "inner society" in mind (facets personality's) even if getting is content from social external role-play is bounded for an internal centralizing natural mechanism which is the reason of "Self" ! (that causes, but it is not, Selfness)
To my perception, "Self" as an integrated wholism in the individual, doesn't just result of awareness and social interaction but is substantiated innerly in the need of a dominant coordinator among peers..."A government" if you want...

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

The closest I can get to your challenge is to quote Richard Feynman

Quote:

Things on a small-scale behave like nothing that you have any direct experience about. They do not behave like wave, they do not behave like particles, they do not behave like clouds, or billiard balls, or weights or spring, or like anything you have ever seen

.

….and famously….

Quote:

Nobody understands Quantum Mechanics

I was not aware I raised the issue of " a deity", but that is certainly the characteristic of one solution proposed by those who are looking for closure on understanding by evoking " an Absolute"

1 Reply

@fresco,

That in NO WAY opposes the idea of a mechanical relation, but rather emphasizes the oddness of the mechanical behaviour...like Functions and operations in reality, on knowledge, any EXPLANATION, even yours Fresco, requires mechanics ! Mechanics is everywhere !

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

sez you !

QM is about the probability of observations. Insofar that words like "force" or "mass" etc figure in such calculations it is generally acknowledged their meaning has departed from that ascribed to them in Newtonian mechanics. Brian Cox for example (in his book The Quantum Universe: Whatever Can Happen Does Happen) goes out of his way to try to define "motion" from the variable called "momentum" because he cannot rely on the traditional definition of momentum as the product of mass and velocity.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Can you define "mechanics?"

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Fully linked operations ! Even forces like Magnetism or Gravity are linked operations...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

What I'm trying to get clarity on is how mechanics influences human behavior.

YOu wrote,

Quote:

That in NO WAY opposes the idea of a mechanical relation, but rather emphasizes the oddness of the mechanical behaviour...like Functions and operations in reality, on knowledge, any EXPLANATION, even yours Fresco, requires mechanics ! Mechanics is everywhere !

2 Replies

@fresco,

If by that your just saying mechanics requires space and time to frame concepts like motion, then I gladly agree...A timeless perspective on reality might hypothetically provide you with a not moving machine, but the links and bolts would all be there nonetheless...yes mechanics is meaningful in a time operating reality, just like consciousness, or anything else !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Without magnetism or gravity, there wouldn't be any life on this planet.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

It transfers information from one moment to the next...body, brain, society, the world...

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Here's a nice one for the pro-mechanists.

The success of QM in predicting probabilities of observations relies on the "Pauli Exclusion Principle" as axiomatic. That principle in essence states:"every fermion (e.g. electron) knows the quantum state of every other fermion in the universe".

Perhaps we should refer to Frank to tell us how those fermions "know" or maybe they are just guessing ! Wink

3 Replies

@fresco,

That would exclude the science of psychology, since it studies how humans behave through their brains and development.

Some decades ago, there was a study done in a Russian orphanage where the children were kept in their cribs and without human touch. Their brains did not develop normally, and they showed no emotions later on in life.

Here's an article on current conditions.

Quote:

There are terrible atrocities being done to children in these Russian orphanages. Special needs children, including those with Downs Syndrome and HIV are labeled as "uncurable" and are often ignored, starved, abused, and left untouched. Many children are STILL being bottle fed at age 8. It leaves them with no social skills and often they don't know how to feed themselves or walk.

Babies with their mouths taped shut in an orphanage:
http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=5500
Starving Children in Russian Orphanages:
http://rus-amnesty.livejournal.com/594.html

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know