Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's always difficult for a dissenter to put dissent into a forum that is devoted to a different worldview. But Buddhism is half there in saying that Self is not real. It is an illusion, which is a fair guess before it was even known that the brain, not the heart, is the basis of mind, which is where the sense of identity comes from.
I'm no expert in anything, but I do get an inkling of how all thought is an assemblage of mental process from the scaly brain that controls action and reaction to the furry brain that does data assessment (in dinosaurs, these brains were actually separate). And I propose that it was in pack or social animals that an instinct of identity and place in society came to be a thing. The faculty of the brain to problem - consider lets us (I suggest) argue with ourselves, like Gollum with Smeagol, and we see the two as different identities. The one we think is us is answered by an almost unbidden entity (some think it's God) which we may call the unconscious mind, the Self or indeed the soul, and the desire to avoid death (another survival instinct) suggests that it lives on after the body is done.
Buddhism rejects that, though skips the question of what then gets reincarnated. But, while it seems to be a dogmatic conclusion, rather than based on any empirical evidence, it is another reason why I have a lot of time for Buddhism.
It's always difficult for a dissenter to put dissent into a forum that is devoted to a different worldview. But Buddhism is half there in saying that Self is not real. It is an illusion, which is a fair guess before it was even known that the brain, not the heart, is the basis of mind, which is where the sense of identity comes from.
I'm no expert in anything, but I do get an inkling of how all thought is an assemblage of mental process from the scaly brain that controls action and reaction to the furry brain that does data assessment (in dinosaurs, these brains were actually separate). And I propose that it was in pack or social animals that an instinct of identity and place in society came to be a thing. The faculty of the brain to problem - consider lets us (I suggest) argue with ourselves, like Gollum with Smeagol, and we see the two as different identities. The one we think is us is answered by an almost unbidden entity (some think it's God) which we may call the unconscious mind, the Self or indeed the soul, and the desire to avoid death (another survival instinct) suggests that it lives on after the body is done.
Buddhism rejects that, though skips the question of what then gets reincarnated. But, while it seems to be a dogmatic conclusion, rather than based on any empirical evidence, it is another reason why I have a lot of time for Buddhism.
I’m going to make my introduction short, the following explanation of the self is by all means correct. It is extremely logical and not at all complex and yet we live in a world in which almost nobody gets it. It’s honestly mind blowing.
Robert Lanza, one of the few scientists who acknowledges the fact that we do not have a self wrote a book about it, claiming that there is in fact an afterlife as a result.
Some positive critiques on the book by other scientists:
“Like “A Brief History of Time” it is indeed stimulating and brings biology into the whole. Any short statement does not do justice to such a scholarly work.” —E. Donnall Thomas, 1990 Nobel Prize winner in Physiology and Medicine
“It’s a masterpiece — truly a magnificent essay. Bob Lanza is to be congratulated for a fresh and highly erudite look at the question of how perception and consciousness shape reality and common experience.” - Michael Lysaght, Professor of Medical Science and Engineering, Brown University and Director of Brown’s Center for Biomedical Engineering
“So what Lanza says in this book is not new. Then why does Robert have to say it at all? It is because we, the physicists, do not say it—or if we do say it, we only whisper it, and in private—furiously blushing as we mouth the words. True, yes; politically correct, hell no!’” —Richard Conn Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy, Johns Hopkins University The explanation: Teleportation:
If we teleport a human, will the same ‘person’ experience the conscious experiences before and after teleportation?
Let’s say we have Bob, Bob is afraid to take a teleport but is forced to. He will travel from earth to Mars. When Bob steps out of the teleport on Mars the first thing he thinks is “Thank God it worked”. However a minute or so later he realizes that it might not have worked, and that he in fact just got ‘born’ a minute ago. He seems to remember his childhood memories, and remembers stepping into the teleport on earth, and the next thing he knew he as right there on Mars. But did ‘he’ actually experience that childhood? Was it ‘he’ who stepped into the teleport? Or was that simply somebody else?
Physicist Michio Kaku addressed this topic on the youtube channel Big Think:
“So it raises a question: Are we nothing but information? Is the soul, the essence of who we are nothing but information? Well I’m a physicist, we don’t know the answer to that.”
[youtube]Conscious robots:
It’s the far future and humans are capable to create conscious robots. We have a robot which is conscious just like you and me. It has multiple sensors as input signals and mechanical arms and tripod like legs as output possibilities. It’s central ‘brain’ processes the input signals and creates a proper output to guide it through the world.
The scientist aren’t evil and want to make sure that throughout time al the experiences are experienced by the same ‘person’, but at which point do they kill one? Can they turn of the robot overnight and turn it back on the next day? Are they allowed to alter the robot? And in which way? Birth:
An American build conscious robot is in a philosophical mood and thinks about the ‘chance’ of being born. For example, what if the scientist who created him had made a different robot? Would he have experienced those experiences? Surely not. But what if they made him a tiny bit different? Like 0.000001 percent. Would it be ‘him’ still? Would ‘he’ experience those experiences? The following quote is from neuroscientist Sam Harris:
“I’m not arguing that consciousness is a reality beyond science or beyond the brain or that it floats free from the brain at death. I’m not making any spooky claims about it’s metaphysics. What I am saying however is that the self is an illusion. The sense of being an ego an ‘I’, a thinker of thoughts in addition to the thoughts, an experiencer in addition to the experience. The sense that we all have of riding around inside our heads as a kind of passenger in the vehicle of the body. Now that sense of being a subject, a locus of consciousness inside the head is an illusion. It makes no neuro-anatomical sense. The is no place in the brain for our ego to be hiding. We know that everything that we experience, our conscious emotions and thoughts and moods and the impulses that initiate behavior all of these things are delivered by a myriad of different processes in the brain that are spread over the whole of the brain. The can be independently erupted. We have a changing system. We are a process and there is not one unitary self that is carried through from one moment to the next unchanging.”
[youtube] The feeling of the self:
Although there is no material ‘experiencer’ in addition to the experience. We can logically explain where this feeling comes from: Information:
‘Bob’ has an experience (A) in which he thinks about what ‘he’ ate yesterday.
(A) Is conscious experience that exists, in it is visual and other information encoded recorded the day before .(A) also knows that the recording of the information was coupled with conscious experience (B). Naturally (A) will think it also experienced (B) and the feeling of ‘self’ between the two emerges.
Simply put: Conscious experiences which share information will naturally have the feeling of a common self. The body:
The most likely way for consciousness to be created in a law-based universe is in the form of life. Because of this, conscious experiences that share information are (basically) always found in the same body or evolution thereof. We are therefore inclined to identify with our bodies.
Based on the previous thought experiments and Sam Harris’s quote I believe the most logical conclusion is that there simply is NO EXPERIENCER IN ADDTION TO EXPERIENCES. The apartment thought experiment:
I want you to think a while about the following thought experiment:
We have drugs who are capable to regulate to which part of the brain memories are written and or read. We put Bob in the following building: It consists of a central room with a bed, and surrounding the central room are 10 different apartments. Each apartment is different and has different things to do in them.
We will label the apartments with numbers 1,2,3 etc.
Bob will live a day in apartment 1, then goes to sleep in the central room after which he spends a day in apartment 2 and again sleeps in the central room. He does this with all the apartments after which he starts again with apartment 1 and continuous this loop during the experiment.
Depending in which apartment Bob will live in the next day he will be given the correct drug so he can read/write the memories of that specific apartment.
Because of this, when Bob participates with the experiment, he appears to be experience the life of only one apartment. When he lives a day in apartment 1 and goes to sleep, the next thing he knows is that he once again needs to go to apartment 1. When Bob experiences apartment 5, it seems to him that he only experiences apartment 5. When apartment 5 is boring or has bad living condition, he can say it was just bad luck that ‘he’ ended up in apartment 5.
Also when Bob participates with the experiment there isn’t a chance that he is going to die doing it.
It is not that because there could’ve been 11 apartment, there is a 10/11 chance that he will live, and a 1/11 chance that Bob will end up in the nonexistent 11th apartment. In which case ‘he’ would experience absolutely nothing.
We can also expand the experiment:
Bob can communicate with the different apartments via email or sms and we could give Bob from each apartment a different job: Bob from apartment 1 could be a mailman, apartment 2 a cashier, 3 a taxidriver etc.
Each will have different salaries, coworkers and friend. In essence Bob from each apartment will have it’s own life. Consclusion:
If there is in fact no experiencer in addition to conscious experiences then by default are the conscious experiences of the different “Bob’s” in the previous experiment experienced by the same ‘person’ just as much as the conscious experiences of the all the different humans on planet earth.
Now here is the big question: What happens when we stop giving a specific drug in the previous experiment? What happens with Bob from apartment 5 when we simply skip his apartment for the rest of the experiment?
a. I did not read the entire opening post.
b. I will answer this question asked at the end of the opening post:
Quote:
Like Michio Kaku said; “Is the soul, the essence of who we are only information?”
Please answer below what you think.
c. No. The essence of who we are is not "information"
You'd have to say what you think the difference is so I can comment.
And while I'm here "c. No. The essence of who we are is not "information"". In a materialist sense it is. You need to explain why what you say (it isn't) is right. Just making plonking assertions, claim and denial validates nothing.
You'd have to say what you think the difference is so I can comment.
And while I'm here "c. No. The essence of who we are is not "information"". In a materialist sense it is. You need to explain why what you say (it isn't) is right. Just making plonking assertions, claim and denial validates nothing.
Given that Buddhism thread is really for Buddhists to discuss rather than skeptics to parachute in and cause trouble, the Self in Buddhism has always been a problem and people tend to think there is one, nevermind Buddhist dogma teaches there isn't. Tzaph has something worth saying about the reality of the Self (the soul) especially as, if, there isn't one, what gets reincarnated that is essentially "You"?
I'm looking for some evidence for, what she claims, rather than slapping her down.
Given that Buddhism thread is really for Buddhists to discuss rather than skeptics to parachute in and cause trouble, the Self in Buddhism has always been a problem and people tend to think there is one, nevermind Buddhist dogma teaches there isn't. Tzaph has something worth saying about the reality of the Self (the soul) especially as, if, there isn't one, what gets reincarnated that is essentially "You"?
I'm looking for some evidence for, what she claims, rather than slapping her down.
I've recently come to a conclusion about something regarding Buddhism: that "theoretical" Buddhism and "practical" (everyday life) Buddhism are, to a degree different things.
I think people can get caught up in all the meditation and chanting and that whole realm of Buddhist experiences. And meditation and chanting can be very helpful in understanding where one is.
But there is great value in understanding that Eightfold Path and the Five Precepts, even without daily and ongoing meditation and chanting. The everyday Buddhists I have known in Thailand do not sit around meditating for hours a day, every day.
And then there's the whole question of 'is reincarnation (or rebirth) real?'
I've recently come to a conclusion about something regarding Buddhism: that "theoretical" Buddhism and "practical" (everyday life) Buddhism are, to a degree different things.
I think people can get caught up in all the meditation and chanting and that whole realm of Buddhist experiences. And meditation and chanting can be very helpful in understanding where one is.
But there is great value in understanding that Eightfold Path and the Five Precepts, even without daily and ongoing meditation and chanting. The everyday Buddhists I have known in Thailand do not sit around meditating for hours a day, every day.
And then there's the whole question of 'is reincarnation (or rebirth) real?'
The impression I got was that Lay Buddhists don't care about Nirvana; what they want is a rebirth in a life like the one they have, but richer and easier, and they think doing Buddhists stuff and making merit is the way to get that.
That said, meditation and mental control is still handy, though i doubt it communicates with some greater reality. It just communicated with the same head - rather like talking to Jesus.
And the two Problems with Buddhist doctrine were the lack of a soul. If some other Id cops your Merit after you die, that's their problem. You need an Id more than just merit (or demerit) and memories to makes rebirth mean anything.
And the other is Karma, which has to be an intelligent agency (effectively a deity) in order to make good and bad merit work. It can't be up to us, nor can it me a physical law sorting - machine. It requires judgement and discrimination. I'm amazed that for 2,600 years none of the Buddhists savants have asked about that.
The impression I got was that Lay Buddhists don't care about Nirvana; what they want is a rebirth in a life like the one they have, but richer and easier, and they think doing Buddhists stuff and making merit is the way to get that.
That said, meditation and mental control is still handy, though i doubt it communicates with some greater reality. It just communicated with the same head - rather like talking to Jesus.
And the two Problems with Buddhist doctrine were the lack of a soul. If some other Id cops your Merit after you die, that's their problem. You need an Id more than just merit (or demerit) and memories to makes rebirth mean anything.
And the other is Karma, which has to be an intelligent agency (effectively a deity) in order to make good and bad merit work. It can't be up to us, nor can it me a physical law sorting - machine. It requires judgement and discrimination. I'm amazed that for 2,600 years none of the Buddhists savants have asked about that.
I think there's a good reason why Lay Buddhists don't care much about Nibanna (other than giving it lip service). I got to know the Thai Theravada monks at my local temple very well over several years, and again, they were Thai citizens here temporarily serving at this temple in Colorado Springs. After the evening meditation and chanting, which I was invited to attend, we would always sit on the floor and talk about 'Buddhist stuff'. One evening I asked, "Do any of you think you'll achieve Nibanna at the end of your current life?" The abbot chuckled. "Oh no, maybe twenty or thirty lives down the road". Most human being can't think...literally cannot think...many lifetimes down the road. We can't think many days down the road most of the time.
You and I have a different view of what Kamma is. Your view is in the majority. I often describe it as thinking there is a "celestial justice system". My view of Kamma is simply cause and effect. Hang around bad people, bad things will happen. Hang around good people, better things will happen. Do bad deeds, get in trouble. Do good deeds, earn respect. And my view -- in my opinion -- does explain why the justice system involved in the generally accepted view of Kamma is so very, very uneven. And I should add that the idea that one can suddenly suffer from bad Kamma several lifetimes later is silly mysticism.
But that's just me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
